SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Videolaryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus
Miller vs Macintosh Size 0 Blades for Tracheal Intubation of Infants Under 1 Month: a Randomized Comparative Study
Can Videolaryngoscopy be the First Choice for Tracheal Intubation in Patients With Diabetes
The Videolaryngoscopy in Small Infants (VISI) Trial
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in children (excluding neonates).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Video versus direct laryngoscopy to improve the success rate of nasotracheal intubations in the neonatal intensive care setting: a randomised controlled trial.BMJ paediatrics open · 2023Trial
- Mind the gap: can videolaryngoscopy bridge the competency gap in neonatal endotracheal intubation among pediatric trainees? a randomized controlled study.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2017Trial
- Intestinal Reconstruction in Infants Under Epidural Anesthesia Without Invasive Airway: A Prospective Case Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Anaesthetic Management of 2 Micropreemies with Difficult Airway: Case Report and Review of Literature.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2022Article
- Videolaryngoscopy Bails us out of Difficult Intubation Scenarios in Syndromic Children: A Case Series.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2021Article
- Normal and difficult airways in children: "What's New"-Current evidence.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2020Review
- Potential and Limitations of Cochrane Reviews in Pediatric Cardiology: A Systematic Analysis.Pediatric cardiology · 2017Review
- Scandinavian SSAI clinical practice guideline on pre-hospital airway management.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2016Review
- Evolution of videolaryngoscopy in pediatric population.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyReview
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEstablishment of secure airway is a critical part of neonatal resuscitation both in the delivery room and in the neonatal unit. Videolaryngoscopy is a new technique that has the potential to facilitate successful endotracheal intubation and decrease adverse consequences of delay in airway stabilization. Videolaryngoscopy may enhance visualization of the glottis and intubation success in neonates.
objectivesTo determine the efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy in decreasing the time and attempts required and increasing the success rate for endotracheal intubation in neonates. SEARCH
methodsWe used the search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating videolaryngoscopy for neonatal endotracheal intubation in May 2013 in the electronic databases; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies; websites for registered trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com; and in the reference lists of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized trials in neonates evaluating videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation compared with direct laryngoscopy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors performed data collection and analysis as recommended by the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Two review authors (KL and MP) independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion. MAIN
resultsOur search strategy performed in May 2013 yielded 7057 references. Two review authors (MP and KL) independently assessed all references for inclusion. We did not find any completed studies for inclusion but identified three ongoing trials and one study awaiting classification. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere was insufficient evidence to recommend or refute the use of videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in neonates. Well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled studies are necessary to address efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in neonates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.